Apparently, the Monastic
one (a.k.a., my personal albatross) seems
some value in a data binding package, and he correctly points out
that validation may not be necessary part of the
equation. I'll take what I can get.
Meanwhile he states surprise, not once but twice, that I
would be willing to go all
the way to web services and all
the way to SOAP in order to achieve this.
So, I felt it instructive to explore exactly how far that
is. This resulted in a new essay, entitled, Soap
By Example. Enjoy.
I just committed code which validates the new creativeCommons rss
module. What this entails is the following:
This continues the effort to codify RSS Best
Practices. The first bullet above is the
same concern as the one expressed on <a> and <img>
tags previously. The second is to avoid
confusion. The third is because while the following are
both valid RSS 2.0, there is no precidence rule used to arbitrate
between them should they differ:
<cc:license rdf:resource = "http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0"
/>
<creativeCommons:license> http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0
</creativeCommons>
In response to Matt, there are
lots of
Open Source licenses. I suspect that many of the CC licenses will
qualify. And, yes, Jon Udell recently released
some software under a license that some would have you believe was
anti-competitive
and a cancer.
The key difference between by-sa and
GPL is one of
marketing genious.
Had Jon merely copyrighted his work, you could have copied it
had you asked for and obtained Jon's permission. All Jon has
done is let you know in advance under what conditions you
are not even required to ask.
Update:
Lawrence Lessig says that CC licenses won't interact with
software licenses. This ignores the fact that they already
have. The most he can say is that his energies are focused
elsewhere, which is fair enough.